- From: Kingsley Idehen <kidehen@openlinksw.com>
- Date: Thu, 28 Jul 2011 13:41:01 -0400
- To: Danny Ayers <danny.ayers@gmail.com>
- CC: public-linked-json@w3.org, public-lod@w3.org
On 7/28/11 1:33 PM, Kingsley Idehen wrote: > On 7/28/11 1:21 PM, Danny Ayers wrote: >> [cc'ing public-lod@w3.org, this all seems to be drifting a little >> beyond JSON scope - see [1], [2], [3] ] >> >> "LD" meaning "Labeled and Directed" for JSON-LD works for me too. >> >> But I don't see a problem with defining linked data as being all-URIs >> (fully grounded, no bnodes or literals) just for spec purposes, it >> does at least emphasize the key feature (although I'm still a fan of >> bnodes :) >> >> Is a graph solely comprised of bnodes linked data? Presumably not. >> >> Is the result of merging an all-URI graph with an all-bnode graph >> linked data? In general parlance and practice yes, but it doesn't >> actually contain any more information than the first subgraph. >> >> So what happens with a graph which contains something like: >> >> <#uriA> :p1 _:x . >> _:x :p2<#uriB> . >> >> ? >> >> It's tricky, the individual triples don't entirely fit with the 4 >> principles, together they kind-of do. But I certainly don't think we >> need to leap to skolemization to make sense of this. >> >> If the graph's on the Web as it should be, then it'll be named with a >> URI, so we could get a "quasi-entailment" along the lines of: >> >> <#graph> :contains<#uriA> . >> <#graph> :contains<#uriB> . >> >> or if you prefer to stay within the graph, something like: >> >> <#uriA> :p1 _:x . >> _:x :p2<#uriB> . >> => >> <#uriA> rdfs:seeAlso<#uriB> . >> >> Dunno, this might all just be angels on a pinhead stuff... >> >> Cheers, >> Danny. >> >> [1] http://json-ld.org/spec/latest/ >> [2] http://lists.w3.org/Archives/Public/public-linked-json >> [3] https://plus.google.com/102122664946994504971/posts/15eHTC3FA4A >> >> > Danny, > > To save time, I'll just refer to Richard's post re. Blank Nodes [1]. > > We do want a WWW based Global Data Space that has a high amnesia > quotient. Remember, your G+ response to my post [1] about TimBL and > Ted Nelson being separated by a common desire (expressed in their > visions) for a Global Linked Data space driven by Hyperlinks? You > couldn't find a Reference to one of your old comment about the > artificial dichotomy of their visions etc.. > > The WWW has a shortening effect on "attention" while upping the ante > on "memory" and "recall". Therein lies the conundrum :-) > > Links: > > 1. > http://richard.cyganiak.de/blog/2011/03/blank-nodes-considered-harmful/ > Danny, I forgot to add the link to the G+ post [1]. Link: 1. https://plus.google.com/112399767740508618350/posts/EbBgmQsx5Tq -- G+ plus post (go to about 37 mins into the presentation for context re. TimBL and Ted false dichotomy matters) -- Regards, Kingsley Idehen President& CEO OpenLink Software Web: http://www.openlinksw.com Weblog: http://www.openlinksw.com/blog/~kidehen Twitter/Identi.ca: kidehen
Received on Thursday, 28 July 2011 17:41:34 UTC